In India, many judges consider it waste of time to hear arguments on husband side- Some Possible Reasons

There are some realities.

1) India is still a male dominated society.

2) There are still incidents of killing girl child in womb.

3) Only recently daughters have been given equal share as sons in properties. Rights of married daughters are still vague.

The law is trying to give them equal playing field.

1) In husband wife suits, as soon as case is filed, husband is to first provide and pay for monthly maintenance to wife and to provide for his legal expanses.

Here, judges may consider it waste of time to hear objections by a rich and capable husband.

Here, there are chances of injustice where, husband's financial condition is also weak.

Sometimes, marriage is broke solely due to brazen fault of wife and her relatives.

To grant such amounts to wife is like paying premium to a wrong-doing wife. The very soul of husband revolts against paying such ransom.

Here, judge may refuse to hear husband by saying ,"This is not the stage to hear merits of your case. First pay maintenance to wife, and then argue this when case is ripe for hearing".

This is probably an Error of Judiciary.

But it can only be corrected by a High Court by Supreme Court in some appropriate case.

But unfortunately, cases relating to interim maintenance are not accepted by Supreme Court and rarely accepted by High Courts.

So only time can heal the wounds of husbands.

He deserves permission to argue merits of his case and demerits of wife's case at interim maintenance stage also.

There is no harm in letting him expose what disentitles wife to ask for interim maintenance.

Haresh Raichura
7/12/14


Copyright : Haresh Raichura 2014. All Rights reserved.

What do we can reasonably EXPECT from SOCIAL JUSTICE BENCH of Supreme Court? -a brief note

From December 12th, 2014, we may see a SOCIAL JUSTICE BENCH in Supreme Court to hear cases relating to social injustice.

What do we can reasonably expect from this Bench? Here are some of my views.

1) There are cases, where one class of citizens is suffering injustice at another class of citizens. Large population of one class is suffering injustice, but very few cases come to notice of Supreme Court. Because, class litigation is yet not popular in India. In a class litigation, any Four Citizens can file suit or PIL for seeking justice for entire class. Few people in India are aware about these provisions. Hence few Class Litigations are coming to Court.


2) Few years ago, Justice S.B.Sinha, laid down in a judgement, that if Supreme Court deems it fit, it can convert any private litigation into a class litigation or public interest litigation and then it can lay down justice for the whole class of population.


3) These are cases mostly, where one class of citizens is claiming some relief against another class of citizens.


4) The Special Bench may devote one Friday each week to hear such cases only. Here , larger public interest cases are given priority over individual interest cases. Each judgement is bound to benefit a large class of population.


We can reasonably expect that social justice will be speedier for many class of citizens.

Haresh Raichura
6/12/14


Copyright : Haresh Raichura 2014 All Rights Reserved

Hate Speech Laws do not apply to something said in Parliament or in Legislative Assembly because

Hate Speech Laws do not apply to something said in Parliament or in Legislative Assembly because general laws do not apply to proceedings in Parliament or Assembly.

These are themselves law makers. The House makes its own law and it has its own power to punish what happens in House.

Courts or Police have no jurisdictions inside House.

Haresh Raichura
5/12/14


Copyright : Haresh Raichura 2014. All Rights reserved.